nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Ongoing religious scandals

PeterIanStaker

MODS NOTE:

Post any stories or commentary on church scandals in this thread only. This is primarily in order to stop the antics of the catholic church clogging up the forum. Any new threads will be closed or moved here.

No suprises here really:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7060406.ece

Find more posts tagged with

religious leader scandals

Quick Links

Comments

4068ac1elhodqr

An investigation has been launched into alleged clerical sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St Louis in the United States,
just a week after a report finding widespread clergy sex abuse in Pennsylvania was released
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0824/987157-clerical-abuse/

Interesting comment here:
Attorney General Josh Hawley said his office had no power to force co-operation, but the archdiocese had agreed to assist with the criminal probe

St Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson, in a letter to Mr Hawley yesterday, said he had invited investigators to review the archdiocese’s files to determine whether it handled allegations of clerical sexual abuse properly. The archdiocese has already removed 27 living priests from the ministry because of sexual abuse allegations, including some who were forced out of the priesthood, Archbishop Carlson said.

Lets hope there aren't another 300 "predator priests" in this state just as there was in Penns (after 2yr Grand Jury probe), in which the church officials (e.g. Cardinal Donald Wuerl) had concealed evidence.

Hotblack Desiato

Everything we've seen until now is only the tip of the iceberg.

Mark my words.

Hotblack Desiato

https://twitter.com/Ciaraioch/status/1032885471729332224

DlWLzZaX0AUtE88.jpg:small

Lithium93_

From the New York Times. More trouble brewing..

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/world/europe/pope-ireland-sexual-abuse-letter-vigano.html

Pope Francis Long Knew of Cardinal McCarrick’s Abuses, Archbishop Says

The former top Vatican diplomat in the United States alleged in a letter published on Sunday that Pope Francis knew about the abuses of a now-disgraced American prelate years before they became public.

The bombshell accusation, leveled by Carlo Maria Viganò, a staunch critic of Francis, immediately threatened to derail the pope’s difficult mission to demonstrate his commitment to combating the clerical sex abuse scandals that threaten his church. And it came on the same day Francis was visiting Ireland, where he begged “the Lord’s forgiveness” for the scandals at a shrine.

Archbishop Viganò alleges that much of the Vatican hierarchy was complicit in covering up accusations that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had sexually abused seminarians.

mikhail

Archbishop Viganò alleges that much of the Vatican hierarchy was complicit in covering up accusations that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had sexually abused seminarians.

Yeah, including Vigano himself.

But after meeting with the three men, Vigano ordered investigators to interview Nienstedt quickly, stop looking into new leads — there were still dozens to pursue — and “wrap up the investigation,” Griffith wrote.

https://www.twincities.com/2016/07/20/vatican-ambassador-sought-to-bury-nienstedt-misconduct-documents-say/

Maybe there's substance to what he said, but it seems he's a long-standing polticial opponent of the current pope ("According to The New York Times, the Kim Davis incident was "part" of the reason that Francis "removed" Viganò from his post. URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/26/world/europe/pope-ireland-sexual-abuse-letter-vigano.html"]20[/URL"), so I think there are more reliable sticks with which to beat the pope.

robindch

mikhail wrote: »

[...] it seems he's a long-standing polticial opponent of the current pope [...]

Yes, the NYT has done some legwork which suggests that Vigano may well have motives beyond simply wishing to restore the honor and dignity of the holy mother church:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/world/europe/archbishop-carlo-maria-vigano-pope-francis.html

Mr Vigano's long and detailed treatise is here:

https://www.scribd.com/document/387040553/TESTIMONY-of-His-Excellency-Carlo-Maria-Vigano-Titular-Archbishop-of-Ulpiana-Apostolic-Nuncio?mod=article_inline

Seth Brundle

robindch wrote: »

Yes, the NYT has done some legwork which suggests that Vigano may well have motives beyond simply wishing to restore the honor and dignity of the holy mother church:

I haven't read (and can't currently read) those but is he wrong?

recedite

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I haven't read (and can't currently read) those but is he wrong?

No, he appears to be backed up by Pope Benny, who somewhat inconveniently for Pope Frank, is still alive.
Vignano's allegation is that McCarrick was part of a wider homosexual/gay friendly/altar-boy-fondling faction within the church. He says Pope Benny found out about these "strange goings on" and (secretly) banished him to a life of prayer and penance.
Subsequently, Pope Frank arrived on the scene and "undid" the banishment. That's partly why Vignano pulled the Kim Davis stunt - to embarrass him. Pope Frank promptly fired Vignano, in revenge.

Recently McCarricks past misdeeds came to prominence again, forcing Pope Frank to rebanish him once more, while pretending he knew nothing about the original banishment. Thus giving Vignano another chance to embarrass him, which he has not let slip away.
So basically, Vignano and Benny are part of a more right wing, homophobic, paedophile-phobic faction, whereas McCarrick, Wuerl and Pope Frank are more "liberal" in their attitudes.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, the latter faction would tend to be favoured as the darling of the media, if it wasn't for the kiddy fiddling. Which we are informed, is not related in any way to the homosexuality. But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.

This will make great material for a Netflix mini-series, some day.
Here's Pope Benny's latest take on it.

Two important lessons can be learned here;
1. When you banish somebody, make sure the Town Crier announces it. That way nobody can undo it.

2. When you become Pope, make sure the previous pope is dead, or expires in the early days of your reign. That leaves you free to purge his acolytes with impunity.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.

That's a pretty disgusting slur.

Turtwig

recedite wrote: »

But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.
.

Mod:
I get the spirit of the point you're trying to make but please be aware it's not really ever helpful to list a demographic of people side by side with another that committed sexual abuse against children. Especially when these demographics have been contrasted in the past in a derogatory manner as means to delegitimise the plight for civil rights of LGBTI people. Whether you intended it or not it, making such a comparison, invokes a feeling of both being similar which they most certainly are not. One is a sexual orientation the other is carrying out physical and mental abuse of children. Please refrain in future from comparing the two in such a fashion. Your points can be made in other ways.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

URL="https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107657063&postcount=3060"]As pointed out earlier in this thread[/URL], the latter faction would tend to be favoured as the darling of the media, if it wasn't for the kiddy fiddling. Which we are informed, is not related in any way to the homosexuality. But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.

What others said about this.

Plus one other important related point which doesn't emerge from your summary. Vigano alleges that Francis was informed of allegations against McCarrick, but SFAIK (I admit I haven't read the entire screed) he doesn't allege that Francis was told about allegations involving minors. (Nearly all of what is alleged against McCarrick involves adults.)

This makes a difference. If you're of the homophobic "paedophilia-is-a-dimension-of-homosexuality" perspective, then an allegation of clerical homosexual abusive behaviour is just as damaging as an allegation of child abuse, and indeed probably implies it. Whereas if you're not of that view. allegations that McCarrick had improper and abusive relationships with adults, while serious, are a world away from allegations that he was involved in child abuse. The anti-Francis faction will tend not to make this distinction, partly because confusing the two phenomena suits their purpose in this instance, and partly because they themselves genuinely tend to conflate the two phenomena.

This is one of these "what did the President know and when did he know it?" moments, only for "President" read "Pope".

recedite

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:
One is a sexual orientation the other is carrying out physical and mental abuse of children. Please refrain in future from comparing the two in such a fashion. Your points can be made in other ways.

But what if one's sexual orientation involves a sexual attraction to minors of the same sex?
First let me say that the issue of consent is central to all this, and IMO what two consenting gay adults "get up to" is their own business. The church does not place enough importance on this.

Secondly, there is also an distinction between a sexual orientation and acting on that impulse. The church places huge importance on this, and in some ways is more compassionate than secular society. That is to say, it will harbour a paedophile if it believes the paedophile is not sexually active. It will do exactly the same for a gay priest.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What others said about this.

Plus one other important related point which doesn't emerge from your summary. Vigano alleges that Francis was informed of allegations against McCarrick, but SFAIK (I admit I haven't read the entire screed) he doesn't allege that Francis was told about allegations involving minors. (Nearly all of what is alleged against McCarrick involves adults.)

This makes a difference. If you're of the homophobic "paedophilia-is-a-dimension-of-homosexuality" perspective, then an allegation of clerical homosexual abusive behaviour is just as damaging as an allegation of child abuse, and indeed probably implies it. Whereas if you're not of that view. allegations that McCarrick had improper and abusive relationships with adults, while serious, are a world away from allegations that he was involved in child abuse. The anti-Francis faction will tend not to make this distinction, partly because confusing the two phenomena suits their purpose in this instance, and partly because they themselves genuinely tend to conflate the two phenomena.

This is one of these "what did the President know and when did he know it?" moments, only for "President" read "Pope".

Good points. However, there is no such difference in Canon Law. The Pope (or Popes) may have their own personal opinions on such matters, but they are somewhat "constrained" in what they can say or do by the office they hold.
The liberal media, in contrast, is free to laud homosexuality while vilifying paedophilia. One could even suggest that in asserting no connection whatsoever between the two, they are engaging in some level of wishful thinking that is akin to the church's position on celibacy. Which suggests that religion allows mankind to live a life of purity, independent of his sexual desires.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Good points. However, there is no such difference in Canon Law. The Pope (or Popes) may have their own personal opinions on such matters, but they are somewhat "constrained" in what they can say or do by the office they hold.

There is a sharp distinction in canon law, and it's become a lot sharper in previous years. There are a growing number of canon law measures that address clerical sexual abuse of minors; they wouldn't be relevant where only sexual behaviour involving adults has been alleged.

robindch

The bishops of Australia announce that they won't report sexual abuse if it has been disclosed during confession.

Apparently, it's "contrary" to their religious beliefs and "inimical to religious liberty". They also say that they are "committed to the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people" while maintaining the confidentiality of confession.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45364556

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a growing number of canon law measures that address clerical sexual abuse of minors...

Going to the police is not one of them apparently.

Odhinn

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a sharp distinction in canon law, and it's become a lot sharper in previous years. There are a growing number of canon law measures that address clerical sexual abuse of minors; they wouldn't be relevant where only sexual behaviour involving adults has been alleged.

......but how will these fare in a society within society, where there are strict protocols, vows of total obedience and so on?

smacl

recedite wrote: »

But what if one's sexual orientation involves a sexual attraction to minors of the same sex?

It is no different to sexual attraction to a minor of the opposite sex. If you act on it, you're a paedophile, simple as that. The issue has nothing to do with homosexuality until such time as you can establish a strong link that says otherwise. The historical link in Catholicism is that homosexuality was considered a perversion, sex with children is a perversion, and thus the two fall into the same category of sexual perversions. The civilised world has long since moved on and fully accepts that being gay is entirely normal and acceptable. The problem here is the Catholic church's repressive and anachronistic notions regarding sexuality, it is no one else's.

Hotblack Desiato

Priests / brothers had much more access to boys (altar boys, teaching in boys' schools) than girls (convent schools where there were always nuns floating about when the priest visited, and no altar girls in those days.)

Nonetheless many of the convicted clerical paedophiles abused both boys and girls, access to the family home provides equal access to both genders.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

It is no different to sexual attraction to a minor of the opposite sex. If you act on it, you're a paedophile, simple as that. The issue has nothing to do with homosexuality until such time as you can establish a strong link that says otherwise.

It's not quite that simple though. A paedophile who does not act on his impulses is still a paedophile. Just as a celibate homosexual priest is still a homosexual. Or a celibate heterosexual priest is still heterosexual. Religion thinks it can help such people stay on "the straight and narrow" and maybe it can.

Senator Norris whose long campaign for gay rights eventually received majority public support, later fell from public favour again after he tried to explain that pederasty was not paedophilia. Twas a bridge too far, for the Irish public.
Anyway, from the point of view of the RCC and the pope wars, I think a pope who is liberal on homosexual priests will also be liberal on paedophile priests. Thats just the way it is, and its tied in with canon law which applies a similar sanction to both.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

It's not quite that simple though. A paedophile who does not act on his impulses is still a paedophile. Just as a celibate homosexual priest is still a homosexual. Or a celibate heterosexual priest is still heterosexual. Religion thinks it can help such people stay on "the straight and narrow" and maybe it can.

But we don't Judge people on what they think, we judge them on how they act and to a lesser extent how they express themselves. I think a vocation that is restricted to one gender who must make a vow of celibacy is also a rather unusual demographic when we're considering proclivities. The concern lies with acted out on and expressed sexual predation of minors, which seems high among the priesthood. Linking this to homosexuality demands strong proof of correlation, without which looks more like homophobia.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

But we don't Judge people on what they think, we judge them on how they act and to a lesser extent how they express themselves. I think a vocation that is restricted to one gender who must make a vow of celibacy is also a rather unusual demographic when we're considering proclivities. The concern lies with acted out on and expressed sexual predation of minors, which seems high among the priesthood. Linking this to homosexuality demands strong proof of correlation, without which looks more like homophobia.

Actually, I believe it's not higher among the priesthood; the incidence appears to be about the same as in other occupations associated with contact with children and youth - teachers, sports coaches, etc. The scale of the problem in the church is hugely magnified by the "multiplier effect" of the church's reprehensible denialism, concealment, shuffling around, failure to recognise the compulsive nature of the behaviour, etc, etc.

That's not to say that celibacy and the associated culture has nothing to do with the problem - it may do, but I think the jury is still out on exactly what contribution it makes, and how big that contribution is. But it appears to be relatively minor compared to the contribution made by the church's handling of the behaviour, once it manifests.

(And of course we must consider that the church's catastrophic handling of the issue was itself due to a defective understanding of the problem which may have been partly or indirectly due to, or contributed to by, a culture of celibacy.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I believe it's not higher among the priesthood; the incidence appears to be about the same as in other occupations associated with contact with children and youth - teachers, sports coaches, etc. The scale of the problem in the church is hugely magnified by the "multiplier effect" of the church's reprehensible denialism, concealment, shuffling around, failure to recognise the compulsive nature of the behaviour, etc, etc.

Quite possibly. I think you also have a strong possibility that potential pedophiles are attracted, whether consciously or subconsciously, to vocations that have opportunity of access to children. As such, their employers need to expect this and be in a position to detect it ad deal with it effectively and transparently, both at recruitment stage and on an ongoing basis.

My main point to Rec was that lumping this in with homosexuality is entirely inappropriate until a very good reason can be found to do so.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

My main point to Rec was that lumping this in with homosexuality is entirely inappropriate until a very good reason can be found to do so.

I agree. I think the research suggest that when paedophiles also have adult relationships, there's no connection between the orientation of their adult relationships and the orientation of their paedophilia. Hard to know, obviously,if that also holds good for paedophile clerics, since they tend not to have adult relationships or, if they do, they are covert.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

But we don't Judge people on what they think, we judge them on how they act and to a lesser extent how they express themselves...

I know that, but you said...

smacl wrote: »

If you act on it, you're a paedophile, simple as that.

I merely corrected you on the point that a paedophile is still a paedophile whether they are currently and physically molesting kids or not.

So, smacl asserts that paedoplilia is no higher among homosexuals than among the general population.
And Peregrinus asserts that paedoplilia is no higher among priests than among the general population.
And I have my own suspicions.

We would need firm evidence and citations to argue these points any further. However I'm not particularly interested in researching this subject in any detail, so we'll leave it at that.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

And I have my own suspicions.

We would need firm evidence and citations to argue these points any further. However I'm not particularly interested in researching this subject in any detail, so we'll leave it at that.

Voicing a suspicion that gays are more likely than others to be engaged in pedophilia and then refusing to support this suspicion is really no more than homophobia. It really is neither clever nor pleasant to make derogatory remarks about any group of people unless you're willing to support them and stand over them.

robindch

UCD went through the Ryan report with a digital microscope:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/how-data-analytics-revealed-new-insights-in-ryan-report-on-child-abuse-1.3616861

The resulting website is here and is a quite horrific in its scale.

https://industrialmemories.ucd.ie/

smacl

robindch wrote: »

UCD went through the Ryan report with a digital microscope:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/how-data-analytics-revealed-new-insights-in-ryan-report-on-child-abuse-1.3616861

The resulting website is here and is a quite horrific in its scale.

https://industrialmemories.ucd.ie/

And at the same time we still see comments like this today elsewhere on boards;

realitykeeper wrote: »

At least the women in the laundries got free bed and board until they were ready to move on.

Anyone else find it disturbing that this sentiment still exists in Ireland today?

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

And at the same time we still see comments like this today elsewhere on boards;

Anyone else find it disturbing that this sentiment still exists in Ireland today?

Given that I've heard it said that people only "complain" about the church in order to gain financially (evidently being raped & abused not figuring into it), little surprises me.

Odhinn

More than 3,600 children in Germany were assaulted by Roman Catholic priests between 1946 and 2014, a leaked report has revealed.
The study was commissioned by the Church itself, and was due to be published on 25 September.
According to the report, some 1,670 clergymen in Germany committed some form of sex attack on 3,677 minors, German outlet Spiegel Online reported.
A Church spokesman said it was "dismayed and ashamed" by the findings.

Sex abuse and the Catholic Church explained

Only 38% of the alleged perpetrators were prosecuted, with most facing only minor disciplinary procedures, German media said. About one in six cases involved rape.
Most of the victims were boys, and more than half were aged 13 or younger.
Predatory clerics were often moved to new communities, where no warning was issued about their actions.
The study was compiled by three German universities, using 38,000 documents from 27 German dioceses. Its authors said the true extent of the abuse may be even greater, as some records were "destroyed or manipulated".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45500072

Is 38% a higher percentage than was/is the case here?

4068ac1elhodqr

Not sure if this report is accurate, but it seems rather bizzare:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6155521/Vatican-official-Sex-abuse-scandal-churchs-9-11.html#comments

According to the article, Franics, during his address at morning Mass at the Vatican:

- suggested the 'Great Accuser' aka the devil, was behind all the recent (abuse) revelations.
- Francis also claimed the accuser (Mr.Devil) 'had it in' for bishops, who are being hounded.

So every criminal should just blame their actions on the wee red man with horns?

Even if many of his priests are possesed (could well be the case) why not actually take some responsibility.